Endangered Species

October 2005

Home

What kind of person believes that the preservation of species on this planet is less important than the extension of personal property rights to include everything on the planet? Someone who has personal property and does not really believe that we humans are a species on this planet.

This past week has been disheartening for environmentalists and conservationists. The US House of Representatives passed HR 3824, a bill that substantially re-writes the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA). For those of you unfamiliar with HR 3824, here is a brief synopsis of some of its more interesting passages:

• Eliminate Critical Habitat Protections: The old ESA mandated the identification and regulation of specific critical habitats that were most in danger of being destroyed. In these critical habitats, environmental regulations were more strict because in these areas there are species in imminent threat of extinction: see Spotted Owls. Without critical habitats, the government can't keep you from logging off one particular hillside unless it prevents everyone from logging any hillside anywhere.
• Politicize scientific decision-making: The wording of the bill encourages government agencies to define "the best science available." This is like using the "best data available" to prove that Stumpy brand toothpaste results in fewer cavities.
• Make it harder to protect distinct populations of endangered species:Before, if a species was endangered in the US, it was considered endangered. Under the new regulations, if there is another population of that species anywhere else in the world, even if that population would be considered endangered by our laws, it may be impossible to get the species classified as endangered here. The same thing goes for similar species in different parts of the US.
• Eliminate Consultation: Today, government agencies must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service before they take any actions that could undermine the survival or recovery of protected species. The new regulations would allow the administration to categorically exempt agencies from this provision. This will make it highly unlikely that federal agencies will be required to do anything to protect listed wildlife.

• And my personal favorite:

• Require taxpayers to subsidize developers and private companies for complying with the Law: In the unlikely event that the government did step in to prevent a private interest from causing environmental damage, the government would be liable for compensating said private interest for the "loss" they sustain by not being able to go ahead with their project. Talk about a program that encourages the very thing it is supposed to prevent -- and at considerable tax

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License.